The Queen's editing

[BW]

Ok, points above well made.
And I rescind my pick-nitting comment to be replaced with "I get the technical errors".

There is no question that I look at photographs like this with a naive eye for technical details. I just read the photo for the impressions and feelings it gave me. Presented with a naturescape, I could pick out everything wrong with it technically. Presented with the Queenie and the lovely children my mind goes elsewhere. "-)

I enjoy the discussion.

Thats the way these kind of photographs should be viewed. I'm shure this will come out as an excellent print. Imagine if this discussion was about a renaissance painting? This picture will be enjoyed for its content and as a historical document. Not like the thousands of model pictures that flash before your eyes every day. Sorry, but nit picking has no place in this context, as far as I'm conserned.

[stenrasmussen]

I for one am more curious about what the handbag contains 

[Andrea B.]

But Børge, as was pointed out - and to which I conceded and now agree - this is not nit-picking to the photographers here in the thread making the technical comments because this is the type of photography that is their profession. Almass and Elsa and others immediately "read" the photograph differently from the way I would or the way a casual viewer would. They naturally see the technical errors in away which I would not (being myself not a professional portrait & lighting photographer).

Critique - as a formal art itself - is applied on all levels: technical, historical, artistic, contextual, subjective and so forth. I offered a subjective reading about the content of the photograph. Not knowing anything much about the history of formal photographic portraiture, I cannot comment on that. And I did not even see the technical errors. 

I think the discussion is all very interesting.

[Anthony]

It is a nice picture, but that does not excuse sloppy and unprofessional editing.

[elsa hoffmann]

Let me make it clear - again - The only reason why I looked at this image, was to learn. Not because I am trying to be funny or think I am better - I am certainly not better than Ms Leibovitz. I have also made it clear that I don't think Annie is at fault. This is a photography forum and we are not normal viewers of images. We share things on NG to show off - and to learn. Both equally important. One doesn't put this kind of thing on Facebook and tear it apart.

[Jakov Minić]

Elsa, I am on you side my dear
We should all be able to comment and learn from photos that are published.
Almass helped us a great deal in determining what was wrong with the image.
Whether you like the photo or not or whether you like the photographer or not is totally irrelevant to our collective process of learning
Thorough analysis or "nitpicking" is of course crucial to our proper understanding of what went wrong and what we should in the future try to avoid if we were to make some images.
So my thanks goes to the "nitpickers" because I have learned from your comments. I am not certain what I have gained from the worshipers

[Andrea B.]

There are things to dislike about the photo and there are things to like about the photo.

We learn from both types of comments.
We learn from the 'worshippers' to perhaps see differently or to see less critically. We try to see what they see in order to hone our own visions and to either add to or delete from our ideas of what makes a good photograph.
We learn from the professionals how to improve things. Always important.

[BW]

A true detective might at least check if some of the "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects before he draws conclusions.  When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong, I might be inclined to dismiss the whole testimony But I get the idea of a discussion on a technical basis.

[Andrea B.]

An ad hominem attack comment was just removed by me in accordance with NG rules. This discussion can be carried out with respect for differing opinions. Geez. It's so embarassing when some member veers off the rails like that. 

[Almass]

A true detective might at least check if some of the "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects before he draws conclusions.  When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong, I might be inclined to dismiss the whole testimony But I get the idea of a discussion on a technical basis.

1- Could you clarify which: "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects"?

2- Could you clarify which: "When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong"?

We would love to be enlightened and corrected and fess up to our mistakes....would'nt you?

[BW]

The alternating reflections form two opposing mirrors are no editing mistake. And if we want to learn something from this "editing disaster" we might just wait until we get to dissect the full size version of the images before we cast our verdict. So I think I rest my case

[Andrea B.]

I'm still here you two. You are both under edit until I am happy you can discuss and not attack. Make me happy please.

You've both made me feel bad that I removed my Boffin Hat to participate in a thread wearing my Member Hat. Geez. I will have to return to staying out of threads.

[Hermann]

I really learnt a lot from the discussion here. When I first saw the picture I had this weird feeling there was something "wrong" with the picture, without being able to say exactly what. OK, part of it was probably the somewhat strange atmosphere it conveys, but there was more.

And what the discussion did was to point me to some of the reasons why the picture felt "wrong". It still does, but now I understand better why.

Hermann

[BW]

I'm still here you two. You are both under edit until I am happy you can discuss and not attack. Make me happy please.

I solemnly swear to behave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Tempers are getting hot here. Obviously it is time to take a break.

I lock the thread for a while until normalcy is returning.